43rd PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Health EVIDENCE

NUMBER 001 Friday, October 9, 2020

:

1

Standing Committee on Health

Friday, October 9, 2020

● (1305) The Clerk: It has been moved by Mr. Davies that Ms. Rempel [English] Garner be elected as first vice-chair of the committee. The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Jean-François Pagé): Hon‐ [Translation] ourable members of the committee, I see a quorum. Are there any further motions? [Translation] [English] I must inform members that the clerk of the committee can only receive motions for the election of the chair. The clerk cannot re‐ Mr. (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.): ceive other types of motions, cannot entertain points of order nor Are we voting on the first vice-chair? participate in debate. The Clerk: Yes, it's on the opposition vice-chair. [English] (Motion agreed to) We can now proceed to the election of the chair. Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the chair must be a member of the govern‐ The Clerk: I declare the motion carried and Mrs. Rempel Garner ment party. elected as first vice-chair. I am ready to receive motions for the chair. I'll now move to the second vice-chair. Hon. (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC): I [Translation] nominate Mr. McKinnon. The Clerk: It has been moved by Mrs. Rempel Garner that Mr. Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the first vice-chair must be a McKinnon be elected as chair of the committee. member of an opposition party other than the official opposition. [Translation] I am now prepared to receive motions for the position of second vice-chair. Are there any further motions? Mr. Marcus Powlowski: I nominate Luc Thériault for second [English] vice-chair. (Motion agreed to) The Clerk: Mr. Powlowski has nominated Luc Thériault for sec‐ The Clerk: I declare the motion carried and Mr. McKinnon duly ond vice-chair of the committee. elected chair of the committee. Are there any further motions? The Chair (Mr. Ron McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquit‐ lam, Lib.)): Thank you all. I shall move to the head of the table (Motion agreed to) now. The Clerk: I declare the motion carried and Mr. Thériault duly If it's okay with the committee, I will ask if the clerk can carry on elected second vice-chair of the committee. with the election of the vice-chairs. [English] Seeing no dissent, Mr. Clerk, will you please go ahead with the Mr. Chair, we may continue. election of the vice-chairs? The Clerk: Yes. The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the first vice-chair must be a I'll ask the people who wish to speak or to be recognized at any member of the official opposition. point to use the “raise hand” function on the participants panel. I am now prepared to receive motions for the first vice-chair. Mr. Van Bynen, I see that your hand is raised. Please go ahead. Mr. (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): I nominate Mr. (Newmarket—Aurora, Lib.): Thank Michelle Rempel Garner. you, Mr. Chair. 2 HESA-01 October 9, 2020

I'm still relatively new at this. Is this the appropriate time for me Mr. (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): Mr. to introduce a motion for a study? I intend to bring forward a mo‐ Chair, are you talking about passing every motion in the routine tion on the impacts of COVID-19 on the mental health and well- motions as we did prior to virtual Parliament? being of Canadians. I would like to go forward with that. The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen. Now is not actually the The Chair: That is correct. That is Mr. Davies' suggestion. appropriate time. We have to undertake the routine motions that build the structure around the committee. I will give you first dibs once that's completed to move or to discuss your motion. Mr. Darren Fisher: I only have one concern. I remember that when we were doing these things, there were hiccups with technol‐ ● (1310) ogy. There would be 10 minutes with some of our witnesses, and Mr. Tony Van Bynen: Thank you. then we would go over our time. Quite often there were times when The Chair: Next on the list is Mr. Kelloway. a member who was going to speak near the end wouldn't get a chance to speak. I don't know if that's a concern of other members Mr. Kelloway, please go ahead. on the committee, but I think it's important that everybody and all Mr. (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Thank you, parties have a chance to speak. Mr. Chair. Hello to our new colleagues and to our colleagues from the last The Chair: One of the routine motions says that witnesses will session. be given 10 minutes for their opening statements. I think if we're going to modify that, we should deal with that separately. I'd like to move that we readopt all routine motions from the pre‐ vious session. Mr. Darren Fisher: Mr. Chair, I'm okay if you use chair man‐ The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kelloway. I'm going to suggest that agement on that, but we should make sure that all members are we go through them one at a time so that we're clear as to what the okay with that. motions are and what exactly we're doing. May I get you to move them one by one, please? Mr. Mike Kelloway: Sure. The Chair: All right. The suggestion is that we adopt the routine motions from the previous session as is, except that the motion that Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: I have a point of order, Mr. the witnesses be given 10 minutes for their opening statements Chair. would be amended so that witness statements can be shortened at The Chair: Yes, Ms. Rempel Garner. the discretion of the chair. Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Since you started a speaking list on Mr. Van Bynen's item, I would like to be first in line to re‐ spond. Mr. Fisher, do you have a suggestion for what— The Chair: I'm sorry; do you mean you'd like to be first in line to respond to Mr. Van Bynen's motion? Mr. Darren Fisher: Actually, I would say keep it the way it is, if Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: That's correct. all members on the committee are okay with the chair using his dis‐ cretion to ensure that all members get a chance to ask all the ques‐ The Chair: Yes, certainly. tions they want to ask. Mr. Don Davies: Mr. Chair, I have a point of order as well. The Chair: Yes, go ahead. Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: I have a comment on this point, Mr. Don Davies: It's more of a suggestion. I'm just wondering if Mr. Chair. we can get unanimous consent from everybody on the committee to adopt the routine motions as a whole. They were distributed to The Chair: Yes, go ahead. members, and if we don't have any objections to them, we can adopt them all at once and save time. Maybe you can test the com‐ mittee. ● (1315) The Chair: Is it the will of the committee to proceed this way? Do we have any dissent? Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: From my understanding, now I recognize the will of the committee. I think it's appropriate in that all committees are going to be meeting virtually, it is not likely this case that we do that. I would caution, though, that on an ongo‐ a possibility that committees can extend past their original slots, ing basis we should make sure to do motions one at a time. I think which would preclude members of the opposition from asking there's less confusion that way, but with routine motions, we'll be questions, depending on the speaking order. It would be the prefer‐ fine. ence of the Conservative Party that witness statements be held to five minutes to allow time for technical difficulties. I believe the Once again, I'll test the will of the committee. Is it okay if we PROC recommendation was that witnesses submit their written pass all the routine motions in one fell swoop? Is there any dissent? statements to members ahead of time. October 9, 2020 HESA-01 3

I look to some of my colleagues for thoughts on that, but I don't I think what Darren was talking about was giving you discretion think it's technically possible for the meetings to go over time so to extend the meeting so that we could get all the questions in, and that everybody can speak. I'd hate to see us in a situation where you've interpreted that to mean a limitation on the speakers' time. members don't get their speaking slots because we've allowed wit‐ Maybe I'm misunderstanding that, but the thing is, if you start nesses, especially department officials, 10 minutes when they could changing one part of the routine motion to limit it to five minutes, it have submitted statements ahead of time. could affect other things as well. Mr. Darren Fisher: I think that's an excellent suggestion, Mr. Chair. One thing I was going to suggest that maybe can solve this is to The Chair: The suggestion I'm hearing is that we adopt the rou‐ do as you say, by adopting all the routine motions except the one on tine motions as is except that witnesses not be given 10 minutes, as the witnesses' length of time, and just amend that to be “up to 10 previously, but five minutes for their opening statements. All else minutes”. I think that meets what Mr. Fisher was talking about. will remain the same. Are we in agreement on that? Mr. Don Davies: Mr. Chair, I have a comment on that. I don't think this is a routine motion issue. It's more a question of practice. It's that if we are allowed to extend the meetings and we It's not a hill that I would die on, and Michelle makes a good have that time, then as we did last session, we can continue the point. My only concern is that we're adopting routine motions for meeting past the two hours in order to get more questions in, if this entire session. We might or might not be operating under virtu‐ that's technically feasible. As Michelle said, maybe it's not, but in al guidelines for the entire session, so the real question we have to the event that it is, we always have the ability as a committee to ask is whether five minutes is sufficient for a witness. agree to extend the meeting to get the last couple of questioners in and give everybody a chance to ask the questions they want. In times when we've had people come to Ottawa or when we're inviting experts and people who are very busy to come to commit‐ tee, quite honestly five minutes is not very long for someone to be ● (1320) able to make a meaningful contribution to the committee. I don't know how much time we'd gain. Generally, we have two witnesses per hour, so you're talking about gaining 10 minutes. The Chair: I'm seeing that you're in favour of dealing with this particular motion separately and passing all the other routine mo‐ Again, if it's the will of the committee to reduce it to five min‐ tions in one fell swoop. utes, so be it. However, we've all spoken in the House, and it's very difficult to express a well-developed position or to give information in that time, so if we're asking people to come to committee, five Again I ask, is that the will of the committee? Is there any dis‐ minutes is too short. That's my sense of it. I don't think we gain too sent? much as a result of that. That's just my two cents. The Chair: Okay, let's do this: Let us propose to adopt all the routine motions except the one regarding opening remarks and Seeing none, I declare that all the routine motions, except the one questioning of witnesses. We can adopt all of them in one block, regarding opening remarks and questioning of witnesses, are and then we can deal with this and amend it appropriately as a sec‐ passed. ond step. Would it be acceptable to proceed in that way? (Motions agreed to) Mr. Darren Fisher: I still think we could use good chair man‐ agement and get through this and make sure that everyone gets a chance to speak. If we had four witnesses, perhaps the chair could say you get five minutes, or six minutes; and if there are two wit‐ The Chair: I welcome our analysts to the meeting as well, for‐ nesses, maybe.... mally, because now they get brought into the picture. That way, we get what Ms. Rempel Garner has suggested, but we also cover what Mr. Davies has suggested. Now let us carry on with the final routine motion, which is the The Chair: Let's get on with the other motions and sort it out. matter of time for opening remarks and questioning of witnesses. There doesn't seem to be any disagreement or discussion on the other motions. Let's pass all the other motions, and then we'll deal with this particular motion separately. The motion as it existed previously was: Don, go ahead. Mr. Don Davies: Sorry, Mr. Chair. I don't want to get bogged That witnesses be given 10 minutes for their opening statement; that, at the dis‐ cretion of the Chair, during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated six down here in too much minutiae, but quite honestly, I think you minutes for the first questioner of each party as follows: Round 1: Conservative misinterpreted what Mr. Fisher was saying. Party, Liberal Party, Bloc Québécois, . 4 HESA-01 October 9, 2020

For the second and subsequent rounds, the order and time for questioning be as I would like to see you given discretion over the witnesses' 10 follows: Conservative Party, five minutes; Liberal Party, five minutes; Conserva‐ minutes, not over the six minutes that is given to the speakers. I tive Party, five minutes; Liberal Party, five minutes; Bloc Québécois, two and a half minutes; New Democratic Party, two and a half minutes. don't think it's the intention of these routine motions to have you determine whether the Conservative Party, Liberal Party, Bloc and Would somebody like to move that motion? New Democrats get six minutes in our first round. Mr. Darren Fisher: Mr. Chair, I liked what both Ms. Rempel Garner and what Mr. Davies said. I think there might be a punctuation error. It should say, “that Mr. Davies' suggestion that you just make it “up to 10 minutes” witnesses be given up to 10 minutes for their opening statement at for the opening statements gets us to where all the members would the discretion of the chair”, and then a semicolon. Then it should feel comfortable. That's how I saw the situation. say, “during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated six The Chair: Let's move the motion, and then we can entertain minutes for the first questioner of each party as follows”. amendments to it.

Mr. Kelloway, you were moving routine motions. Would you like You'll notice that in the second round, there is no discretion— to move that motion as it stands? which, by the way, is where you actually do exercise discretion oc‐ Mr. Mike Kelloway: I will move that motion as it stands, yes. casionally—where it says the “order...be as follows”. We know that The Chair: Okay, that is the motion on the floor. in the second round, you sometimes have to reduce our questioning time proportionally, which is fine. I don't even think we have to say Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Mr. Chair, can I chime in on “discretion”, because you've always asked for permission and we this? always give it to you. In my experience in the industry committee, we had a couple of meetings cancelled because of technical difficulties with witnesses. My preference would be—and I'm not sure if we can write this into I think we should straighten out that problem in the first round, the routine motions—that any scheduled witnesses be required to because the six minutes is certainly not at your discretion. The six connect with IT well in advance, the day before if possible, on the minutes should be set down as what it is for each of the parties. computer and headset in the room that they are going to be using, so that these issues don't occur. That's where a lot of the friction ● (1325) came from. It was because witnesses hadn't done that.

It would be my preference for that to become a requirement. The Chair: Are you making that amendment? The second thing is that if we're having technical difficulties with a witness and the technical difficulties go longer than their required Mr. Don Davies: Yes, Mr. Chair, I will make that an amendment. statement, we move directly into the questions for that witness, if possible and if it makes sense. The Chair: Could you clarify that amendment, please? I don't like to see technical difficulties with witnesses precluding a meeting from happening. It happened several times to me in the previous committee that I vice-chaired. I'm not sure it's as much a Mr. Don Davies: Sure. function of the chair as it was of witnesses not being tested by IT ahead of time. Sorry, Joshua. Where it says now, “That witnesses be given...”, I propose we I think that's the core of the issue here. amend it to insert the words “up to” in front of “10 minutes for their The Chair: I think that's a separate motion on how to deal with opening statement”, then remove the semicolon, the word “that” those kinds of technical issues. and the comma. The sentence continues “at the discretion of the The motion before us right now, which I'm looking for amend‐ Chair”, then semicolon. Then it continues, “during the questioning ments for, is about the time they have for an opening statement and of witnesses, there be allocated six minutes....” so forth. I see Mr. Davies has raised his hand. Please go ahead. The Chair: I'm going to speak up for “the discretion of the chair”. Perhaps we should have an amendment...well, we'll deal Mr. Don Davies: Thank you, Mr. Chair. with that separately. I'm happy to speak to this motion. I think the motion needs an amendment that says witnesses be given up to 10 minutes. We have an amendment on the floor. Is there anyone who wishes I noticed something else that I think needs to be addressed. The to speak to that particular amendment? motion goes on to say, “that, at the discretion of the Chair, during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated six minutes for the first questioner”. Go ahead, Mr. Powlowski. October 9, 2020 HESA-01 5

Mr. Marcus Powlowski: I support Don's amendment. It seems Ms. ( South, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. like a good idea. I like the fact that we leave open the possibility Chair. that people can speak for 10 minutes, because some of the issues we're going to be facing require some explanation, such as testing. I agree with Don's suggestion. I think it's necessary to ensure ev‐ The value of testing—its positive and negative predictive value, eryone has to ask questions in the second round. It's more impor‐ and those kinds of things—is pretty hard to explain in five minutes tant. to people who aren't familiar with it; however, I think 10 minutes would probably be enough time. The Chair: Thank you. There are a number of issues we'll be looking at that will take more than five minutes to understand. I think this allows enough Is there any further discussion on this amendment? flexibility, and it also addresses the possibility of cutting people off because we don't have enough time. I support Mr. Davies' amend‐ Mr. Davies, you have your hand up on the panel, as does Ms. ment. Rempel Garner. Are these points on this amendment? The Chair: I believe Mr. Kelloway has a point. Mr. Don Davies: No. I would just conclude that in answer to Mr. Mike Kelloway: Yes, I have a quick comment in terms of Larry's concern, if we give you the discretion of up to 10 minutes, Don's approach. It's a good catch. I like the addition of “up to 10 then—as Mark has pointed out—if we have a professor from Har‐ minutes”, and of course, the discretion is in the second round, not vard who's going to be talking about some complex issue, that's in the first round, which is a great catch. I think it's a good move. something they may need 10 minutes on. A different witness may The Chair: Thank you. have fewer points to make, so you can use your discretion. When we talk to witnesses, we can maybe communicate to them that it's a Is there any further discussion on the amendment? hard 10 minutes, and if they send their statements in advance, we would appreciate their taking as little of the 10 minutes as possible We have people raising their hands physically on the screen. We to allow time for questions. I think we can achieve what all of us also have people raising their hands on the participants' panel. I'm are saying here by the amendment. not sure which of the ones in the participants' panel are related to Mr. Van Bynen's motion, after we're done with the routine motions. The Chair: Is there any further discussion on this amendment? For the moment, everybody wave to me on-screen if you wish to Seeing none, I'll ask the committee if there is unanimous consent to make a comment on this particular amendment. adopt the amendment. Is there any dissent? Mr. Maguire, please go ahead. Mr. (Brandon—Souris, CPC): I was going to (Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]) go back to what was said earlier about the technical difficulty. The Chair: We now go to the main motion, which has been We are certainly faced with a different situation in the virtual amended. meetings. I agree with the 10 minutes, if you're sitting in the House all the time or if we are all together in the committee room. Howev‐ Is there any discussion on the motion as amended? Seeing none, er, we're not, and I think the instruction that we received was that I'll ask if the committee is in agreement with this motion. If there is there would have to be co-operation from witnesses in providing any dissent, please indicate that. written statements well ahead of time. If that's the case, five or six minutes might be enough for us to understand what the witness is (Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]) saying, even though in a regular setting it would take 10 minutes. We also don't always get copies ahead of time. We're supposed The Chair: Ms. Rempel Garner, you had comments about pro‐ to, but in this particular direction I thought that was where we were. cess, such as requesting written copies in advance, and so on and so I expected that even if we were participating virtually, we would re‐ forth. If you wish to go ahead with that, I think that would be a rou‐ ceive copies by email or text prior to any witness coming forward, tine motion. so we'd have a good understanding and it would be to the point, particularly with members of the departments. I should point out that when we ask for written statements from ● (1330) the witnesses, sometimes they don't give them to us in time for The Chair: Thank you. them to be translated and distributed, so I would ask that if you have a motion there that you would like to put forward around tech‐ Is there any further discussion on this amendment? nical issues and so forth....

Go ahead, Mr. Van Bynen. Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: I would say, Mr. Chair, just for Mr. Tony Van Bynen: I'm sorry. I think I saw Ms. Sidhu raising the record, if you could encourage IT services to test witnesses her hand. I wanted to alert you to that. where possible ahead of time, as well as request written statements, The Chair: Thank you. then that just becomes a practice, and I don't have to raise it as points of order if we have a meeting that is shut down due to tech‐ Ms. Sidhu, did you have a point? nical difficulties. 6 HESA-01 October 9, 2020

The Chair: We will certainly do so. We will get our clerk to re‐ meeting to deal with all of these issues and to prioritize them, and quest that when we invite witnesses, they get their statements in, as so I'll ask you all to consider whether you're interested in doing I think we need them 72 hours in advance, ideally, to get them that. translated. We can certainly make that request, absolutely.

Seeing no other discussion on the routine motions.... Having said that, I will pass the floor over to Ms. Rempel Gar‐ Mr. Van Bynen, as promised, I said that you would have first ner. shot on substantive motions following the routine motions. ● (1335) Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Tony Van Bynen: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, tomorrow, Saturday, October 10, is World Mental I really do find a lot of encouragement in the spirit of this motion Health Day. The motion that I am proposing is to study the impacts that's on the floor. I try not to put my personal life into the public of COVID-19 on mental health and the well-being of Canadians. domain, but as somebody who is separated from her family due to COVID-19 measures, I understand the impact on mental health of Over 9,500 Canadians have tragically died due to COVID-19, some of these measures. Talking to other people who are in situa‐ and every day we're seeing case numbers rise as Canada enters into tions similar to mine, I know that's tough, and that's just one group a second wave. In the spring, we heard from many witnesses who of people. There are people who have lost their jobs or who are ex‐ spoke about the physical impacts of COVID-19 and what we need periencing domestic violence or mental health breakdowns. It's cer‐ to do to protect ourselves from the virus. I believe we had 34 meet‐ tainly something that I think is important for our committee to look ings, 171 witnesses and 51 briefs. at. With the exception of one meeting, we didn't hear about the real psychological impacts that we know are happening. Many Canadi‐ ans are struggling. In April, the CMHA put out a statement that said That said, our committee has been prorogued for some time due that Canada must now act to prevent an echo pandemic for mental to the government's decision to prorogue Parliament. Today we are illness due to COVID-19—a pandemic, unfortunately, Mr. Chair, seeing record numbers of cases in , as well as shutdowns of for which we have no vaccines. businesses again. This particular issue needs to be looked at not just in light of the evidence that was considered in the previous session My concern is for a brewing issue that we should address, and of this Parliament but also in light of what has happened over the we should make sure that we have the effectiveness and efficiencies last couple of months. We need to have answers on the rapid testing in the programs to go forward and deal with that before it gets out procurement process, vaccine status and the decision to shut down of hand. the early warning system. There are several issues this committee needs to look at, and mental health is certainly one of them, but I My motion, Mr. Chair, is: think it needs to be done in a more holistic way. I certainly support That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study, of no this particular motion, but it needs to be done in the context of a less than eight meetings, in order to (a) understand the impacts, including the gendered impacts, of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health and well- larger motion and within the larger picture. being of Canadians; (b) analyze the impacts on Indigenous peoples, racialized Canadians, and vulnerable populations in an effort to identify and address sup‐ port gaps; (c) study the availability of mental health-promotion programs and The other thing I would say, Chair, is on your comment to supports for those experiencing new pandemic-related stress and anxiety and reschedule this for a separate business meeting. I don't agree with how those supports have been affected since the pandemic began; (d) study the effectiveness and availability of virtual mental health services; (e) analyze how that. We've lost nearly two months of this committee and we're in the government can assist provinces and territories in alleviating potential new the middle of what I would call not a second wave but a tsunami. demands on their healthcare systems resulting from any increase in depression, There are things that this committee has to look at with regard to its psychological distress, substance use, PTSD and domestic violence; that the role and to scrutinizing the government's response. Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House no later than December 7, 2020 and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Committee re‐ quest that the government table a comprehensive response to the report. The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen. I know there is a desire among certain committee members to look at a perhaps more holistic motion, and with that, I move to ad‐ Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Mr. Chair— journ debate on this motion. The Chair: Ms. Rempel, please go ahead.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Thank you. ● (1340) The Chair: Actually, before you do so, let me interject. This is an important motion, and Ms. Rempel, I am absolutely The Chair: We have a motion to adjourn debate. I believe that is going to give you an opportunity to respond to it. I'm suggesting non-debatable, so I will ask the clerk to conduct a vote. that perhaps with the number of studies we have already consid‐ ered, including the COVID study we were doing prior to proroga‐ tion and so forth, that we might want to have a separate business (Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings]) October 9, 2020 HESA-01 7

Mr. Don Davies: Mr. Chair, on a point of order, with regard to (a) an order of the committee do issue for all memoranda, e-mails, documents, future conduct of the committee, that was an unusual voting order. notes or other records from the Prime Minister’s Office, the Privy Council Of‐ fice, the Office of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Generally the votes always begin with the government side and Office of the Minister of Health, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency then go through the official opposition, the Bloc and us. I just found of Canada, concerning options, plans and preparations for the Global Public it unusual to start voting in that order, so it's something I think we Health Integration Network, since January 1, 2018, provided that these docu‐ should straighten out for future votes. ments, organized by department, shall be provided to the clerk of the committee within thirty days of the adoption of this motion; The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Davies.

I believe that the voting order is at the discretion of the clerk, but (b) an order of the committee do issue for a record of all communications be‐ if the clerk wishes to speak to this he can. We can certainly consid‐ tween the government and the World Health Organization in respect of options, er this as something to take up later. plans or preparations for any future operation, or absence thereof, of the Global Public Health Integration Network, since January 1, 2018 provided that these The Clerk: I will adjust to the will of the committee. I don't documents, organized by department, shall be provided to the clerk of the com‐ mind, honestly. I'm sorry about that. mittee within thirty days of the adoption of this motion; The Chair: Ms. Rempel Garner is next.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Thank you, Mr. Chair. (c) an order of the committee do issue for all memoranda, e-mails, documents, notes and other records from the Prime Minister’s Office, the Privy Council Of‐ I move: fice, the office of the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, the office of That, pursuant to standing order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Health com‐ the Minister of Health, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada, mence a study on the emergency situation facing Canadians in light of the sec‐ concerning plans, preparations, approvals and purchasing of testing products in‐ ond wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that this study evaluate, review and cluding tests, reagents, swabs, laboratory equipment and other material related to examine all issues relevant to this situation, including the following: tests and testing applications used in the diagnosis of COVID-19, since March 19, 2020, provided that these documents, organized by department, shall be pro‐ a) rapid and at home testing approvals and procurement process and schedule, vided to the clerk of the committee within thirty days of the adoption of this mo‐ and protocol for distribution; tion; b) vaccine development and approvals process, procurement schedules and pro‐ tocol for distribution; c) federal public health guidelines and the data being used to inform them for (d) an order of the committee do issue for all memoranda, emails, documents, greater clarity on efficacy; notes and other records from the Prime Minister’s Office, the Privy Council Of‐ d) current long-term care facility COVID-19 protocols as it pertains solely to fice, the office of the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, the office of federal jurisdiction; the Minister of Health, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada concerning plans, preparations and purchasing of personal protective equipment e) the availability of therapeutics and treatment devices for Canadians diagnosed including gowns, gloves, masks, respirators, visors and face shields since, March with COVID-19; 19, 2020, provided that these documents, organized by department, shall be pro‐ f) the early warning system Global Public Health Intelligence Network vided to the clerk of the committee within thirty days of the adoption of this mo‐ (GPHIN); tion; g) the government’s progress in evaluating pre or post arrival rapid testing for travellers; h) the availability of paid sick leave for those in quarantine and voluntary isola‐ ● (1345) tion; j) the adequacy of health transfer payments to the provinces in light of the COVID-19 crisis; (e) an order of the committee do issue for all memoranda, emails, documents, k) the impact of the government’s use of WHO advice in early 2020, decision to notes and other records inclusive of correspondence with contracting firms and delay the closure of borders and delay in the recommendation of wearing of companies, from the Prime Minister's Office, the Privy Council Office, the of‐ masks on the spread of COVID-19 in Canada; fice of the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and the office of the l) the Public Health Agency of Canada’s communication strategy regarding Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry concerning plans, preparations, ar‐ COVID-19; ticle 1.3 designations and purchasing of ventilators since March 19th, 2020, pro‐ vided that these documents, organized by department, shall be provided to the m) the development, efficacy and use of data related to the federal government’s clerk of the committee within thirty days of the adoption of this motion; and COVID-19 Alert application; n) the impacts of COVID-19 on mental health; o) Canada’s level of preparedness to respond to another pandemic, and; (f) that, to protect against the premature disclosure of national security matters, p) the availability of PPE in Canada and a review of Canada’s emergency stock‐ or personal privacy information, contained in the documents provided to the pile of Personal Protective Equipment between 2015 and present; clerk prior to the release of the documents by the Clerk of the Committee, any potential redactions be undertaken by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parlia‐ q) The government’s contact tracing protocol, including options considered, mentary Counsel, provided that the process for redactions begin the day after the technology, timelines and resources, and; documents have been provided to the clerk of the committee, and shall last no r) the government’s consideration of and decision not to invoke the federal longer than seven days, unless granted an extension by unanimous vote of the Emergencies Act; committee, and (i) that redactions be limited to the protection of national securi‐ ty matters, or personal privacy information to the exclusion of all other reasons, that this study begin no later than October 20, 2020, that the Committee table its and (ii) that in the event of a request for an extension the request be accompa‐ findings in the House upon completion, that the government provide a response nied by the release of all documents for which redactions have already been to these findings within 30 sitting days, and that evidence and documentation re‐ completed, and (iii) that in the event of multiple requests for extension, all docu‐ ceived by the Committee during its study of the Canadian response to the out‐ ments for which redactions have been completed since the last request for an ex‐ break of the coronavirus commenced during the 1st Session of the 43rd Parlia‐ tension must accompany any additional requests for extension, and (iv) no re‐ ment be taken into consideration by the Committee in the current study. quest for an extension may exceed seven days and all extensions shall be granted 2. That in order to fully study this emergency situation; only by unanimous vote of the members of the committee; and 8 HESA-01 October 9, 2020

(g) seven days after all documents have been provided to the Clerk of the Com‐ ● (1350) mittee or the deadlines for their production have elapsed, as the case may be, and the redaction process mentioned in subparagraph (b)(ii) has concluded, in‐ Ms. Sonia Sidhu: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. vite the Minister of Health, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and the Minister of In‐ The Chair: Yes, Ms. Sidhu, go ahead. novation, Science and Industry each to appear separately before the committee for at least three hours, provided that in respect of each of them who does not Ms. Sonia Sidhu: Mr. Chair, the opportunity was not given to agree, within one week of the adoption of this motion, to accept this invitation me. I had my hand raised in the Zoom and physically, but the op‐ for the length of time prescribed, the Chair shall be instructed to report to the portunity was not given to me. House forthwith a recommendation that this committee be empowered to order his or her appearance from time to time. I would like to bring my motion forward. My hand was up before Mr. Chair, you, the members of the committee and the clerk Ms. Rempel Garner's. should have received the full text of this motion in both official lan‐ Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: I have a point of order on that guages. point of order, Mr. Chair. I realize that this is a lot; however, this committee has been inac‐ The Chair: Thank you. tive for some time, and we are in one of the greatest public health challenges that our country has ever faced. Many of the documents Thank you, Ms. Sidhu. Ms. Sidhu, I apologize. That was my er‐ that I am proposing that the committee compel have been discussed ror. However, I did give the floor to Ms. Rempel Garner. I think in this committee before, and their coming to light was delayed by that has to stand, but I do apologize. I'll have to keep an eye on that prorogation. panel a lot better then I have been. I think it is very important right now for our committee to get Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: On a point of order, Mr. back to work and to be doing our job regardless. None of us has a Chair— government appointment, outside of Mr. Fisher, so our job is to Ms. Sonia Sidhu: But Mr. Chair— hold the government to account across party lines to make sure that the government is serving the best interests of Canadians with the Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: I have a point of clarification, best possible response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr. Chair. I would direct Ms. Sidhu's attention, when the minutes of this meeting come out, to the fact that after you had recognized I certainly urge members of the committee to support this mo‐ Mr. Van Bynen, I believe, prior to reading the motions, I said that tion. It will allow us to get to work right away. since you were taking a speaking list, I would like to speak first. You recognized me for that. In terms of proper procedure, you put Also, we should not delay the compulsion of these documents. me second on the speaking list. We will be going into a parliamentary recess over the next week, after being prorogued for some time. The adoption of this motion Thank you. today will allow folks who are involved in pulling those docu‐ Ms. Sonia Sidhu: Mr. Chair, may I speak? ments—who should have been doing that already, because of the session in the previous Parliament—to finish that work in an expe‐ Mr. Chair, if you can check on the Zoom... dient manner and allow us to start reviewing that information as quickly as possible. The Chair: Just hold on one second. If there are arguments made today that there is not enough time Ms. Rempel, I did give you second place for responding to Mr. to review this, there is really nothing new here. These are all things Van Bynen. Also, I did recognize you, later on, to move your mo‐ that have been brought up in question period and in previous ses‐ tion. That was my mistake. sions of this committee, but we're now in a second wave, and the results of the government's response are showing, with an increase Ms. Sidhu, go ahead. You have something further to say. in cases as well as another economic shutdown in parts of the coun‐ Ms. Sonia Sidhu: Mr. Chair, I have a right to present my motion try, and that's concerning. if my hand is raised in the Zoom before Ms. Rempel Garner. I would like to have this motion adopted today. I have endeav‐ The Chair: Unfortunately, I did give the floor to Ms. Rempel oured to include my colleague's component on mental health. I do Garner. That was my mistake. I apologize. think that's important, but it has to be considered within this broad‐ er context, so I would like us to get to work. I would like all mem‐ With respect to Ms. Rempel Garner's motion, it's enormous. I bers of this committee to really think about this in terms of their think certainly there are aspects that are clearly within our mandate, obligations as individual members of Parliament, not as one politi‐ but in terms of the whole motion, I don't think it's appropriate for cal affiliation or another who might be leaned on by the centre of me to rule on whether it's in order until I can see it and examine it their party. We need this done; we need this done well. I will not in its entirety, so I would ask that this decision be deferred. accept any delay on this issue. I will not accept any argument that we somehow need to wait. I'm not— ● (1355) You do have the motion in front of you, and I certainly hope we can proceed to adopting it. Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Mr. Chair— October 9, 2020 HESA-01 9

The Chair: Sorry. Well, the chair has recognized Mrs. Rempel Garner, so....

Ms. Rempel Garner, go ahead. Can we just have a little chat by phone, Mr. Chair, just to make Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Mr. Chair, are you ruling this sure that...? Can we suspend for, like, two minutes? motion inadmissible? Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, The Chair: I am asking for time to analyze the motion and de‐ I don't believe the clerk can ask to suspend the meeting. Only you termine whether it is, in fact, in order. can do that. Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, The Chair: I'd like to talk to the clerk anyway and find out what I do not give you that time. It is on the floor and it is in order. Are the straight scoop is on this. I will suspend the meeting for a couple you deeming it in order? of minutes. Mr. Tony Van Bynen: Mr. Chair, my point of order—and it goes to Ms. Sidhu's comment—is that if my memory serves me correct‐ Thank you. ly, as I think the record will show, you permitted Ms. Rempel Gar‐ ● (1355) ner to respond to my motion, but you did not make a commitment ______(Pause)______to permit her to put forward a motion. ● (1400) My thought is that if in fact that was the case—and the record will show that—then I believe Ms. Sidhu's motion should be before The Chair: Thank you, everyone. We can resume the meeting. us, before Ms. Rempel Garner's motion. I have not actually seen this motion in writing. It was sent a very, Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: To respond to that point of or‐ very short time ago. I don't think it's reasonable for me to rule on der, Mr. Chair, Bosc and O'Brien actually does not support that par‐ this order without fully being able to analyze it. I think it's very dif‐ ticular analysis. You did give me the floor, my motion is in order ficult for all of our members, on both sides of the House, to consid‐ and it's on the floor right now. I believe that we should be debating er this motion. It's a massive, huge motion, and I think it deserves my motion, according to the rules, which I have right here. proper evaluation and analysis. The Chair: We have.... Again, I would like to defer that decision until I have a chance to Ms. Sonia Sidhu: Mr. Chair, can we ask the clerk? If I raised my examine the motion. hand in the Zoom, I think I have the right to present this motion. This motion is very important for me, too. Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, there is no actual way for you to do that. The Chair: I believe the problem is my mistake. I did give Ms. Rempel Garner the floor when I should have given it to you. That The Chair: That being the case— was my mistake. She did have the floor. I'm going to focus on the participants' panel and whose hands are Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: I mean, you can ask, but we up there. have been prorogued for a long period of time. We can take as long as we need today for members to read it while we're sitting here. Mr. Kelloway, your hand is up. We have time scheduled. We have a full other hour. I know that I Mr. Mike Kelloway: One of the things I was going to say, Mr. read a lot more in a lot shorter period of time than that. Chair, is to maybe refer to the clerk for his thoughts as well. The motion is in order and it is on the floor. People can debate it I appreciate Ms. Rempel Garner's motion on the table, but I need now if they'd like, but it is in order, and we should be moving to to be able to go through, line by line, anything that I'm going to debate. vote on for my constituents—and for the constituents of Canada— The Chair: Well, whether it's in order or not is actually a deci‐ to ensure that I'm aware of what I'm voting on. Every syllable needs sion of the chair. However— to be reviewed by me. I would asked for that to be deferred, but I will defer to you and to the clerk and to others in this debate. Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: As a point of clarification, Mr. The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kelloway. Chair, are you ruling the motion in order or out of order? Ms. Sidhu, I see your hand is up on the participants panel. The Chair: I'd prefer not to rule on it at this time, because I haven't really had a chance to digest it, nor have any members of Ms. Sonia Sidhu: Mr. Chair, can you examine the digital rules? the committee, other than perhaps yourselves. However— Can you ask the clerk? Mr. Mike Kelloway: Mr. Chair— This motion is very important to me. I really want to present this motion. The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Kelloway. The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Sidhu. Mr. Mike Kelloway: I suppose it's a point of order. I'm going to make the motion that we adjourn debate on this one. I think it's es‐ I wonder if the clerk would like to comment here. sential that we have time and not have to do it within an hour. It's The Clerk: Yes. not a game show. It's not a time-limited thing. 10 HESA-01 October 9, 2020

The Chair: If you wish to adjourn the debate, you need to move The Chair: The ruling of the chair is not sustained. Therefore, it to adjourn the debate and say nothing afterward. Do you wish to would apparently be in order. move to adjourn the debate? Mr. Mike Kelloway: Yes. Mr. Davies, go ahead. The Chair: We have a motion to adjourn the debate on the floor. Mr. Don Davies: Thank you. I would like to speak to the mo‐ Mrs. (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): I tion. I might also just say that in my 12 years in Parliament, I have request a recorded vote. never heard anybody raise a point of order that someone else was The Chair: Absolutely. recognized before they were. You know, we are going to have to have some stable rules and respect of the process in this committee. Mr. Clerk, would you carry on with the vote? When the chair recognizes that someone has the floor, we can't be Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, complaining after the fact that we should have been recognized. I believe Mr. Kelloway moved this motion on a point of order, which he can't do. Can I just get the clerk— Second, I am very glad that the committee saw fit to overrule The Chair: I believe you can't move a substantive motion on a your attempt to declare a motion out of order when it had been point of order. I will ask the— validly moved. You know, we may not like a motion before us, but Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Could I get a clarification from that's not a reason to prevent us from discussing it. We are in our the clerk on what happened there? first committee and we are discussing committee business, and it is wholly in order for any member of this committee to put forward The Chair: Please go ahead. any motion they want—short, long, simple, complex—as they see Actually, I didn't recognize him on a point of order, but he did fit. Complexity is not a reason for ruling a motion out of order. say “point of order” when he spoke— Now, to the motion itself, to be honest, I am surprised that any‐ Mr. Kelloway: I did. body on this committee—in particular the Liberals, who sat through The Chair: —but he was not recognized on a point of order. I'm eight months or really seven months of study on COVID with me— going to say that despite his saying he was bringing a point of or‐ would find anything complex or challenging about this motion. Re‐ der, he was not recognized as such, so we will carry on with the ally what this motion does is a couple of very important things. It vote. adopts all of the evidence that we heard from the previous session and, second, it continues the extremely important work this com‐ Carry on, Mr. Clerk. mittee has in looking at the COVID-19 issue on a holistic basis. (Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings]) There is nothing surprising and nothing complex or disturbing and nothing that should be controversial about this motion. The Chair: The motion to adjourn debate is not adopted, so we will carry on. I want to say, as my colleague Michelle Rempel Garner said, that I am going to rule the motion out of order at this time— we are facing the biggest public health crisis in a century, and while I totally respect the motion that was raised by Mr. Van Bynen to ● (1405) segregate this committee's attention onto mental health, as vitally Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Mr. Chair— important as that is, it is not the only issue facing this country as The Chair: Ms. Rempel Garner, I'm still speaking. this point in time.

I'm going to rule the motion out of order at this time, pending the We are in the middle of a second wave. In fact, some might even opportunity to review it— argue that we are in a continuation of the first wave. Our two Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Mr. Chair— largest provinces in this country, Ontario and Quebec, are on red The Chair: —and analyze it. alert, with a thousand cases of COVID occurring in Quebec and, I think, cases approaching that in Ontario. As we speak, we are ap‐ A voice: It's right there. proaching the same high level of pandemic that we were experienc‐ ing back in March or April. The Chair: Go ahead, Ms. Rempel. Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Now, HESA of course has a critical role to play in this. It's our I challenge your ruling. job to evaluate the effectiveness of the federal government's re‐ The Chair: Thank you. sponse and, first and foremost, fundamentally to protect Canadians. That is what we are doing here across party lines, and I believe all Mr. Clerk, the motion is to sustain the ruling of the chair. of us share that same goal. It's about not only holding the govern‐ Mrs. Karen Vecchio: Can we have a recorded vote, please? ment accountable but also the larger purpose of making sure that we can produce information that will allow the government to pro‐ (Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of vide the best possible health care, safety and protection for Canadi‐ Proceedings]) ans. October 9, 2020 HESA-01 11

In the last session, of course, all of us were dealing with When this committee asked for documentation to be provided—and COVID-19 on the fly. When this committee was meeting in March we limited the criteria of redaction in our motion—it was ignored and April, it was unprecedented. We had no real context. We had no by the government. The ministry redacted information on 15 real experience. I remember back in March the health minister of grounds, the grounds listed in the Access to Information Act, and Canada saying that the risks of COVID-19 were low. I remember not the criteria we specifically limited them to in our motion. the chief medical officer, the public health officer of Canada, say‐ ing that not only were masks not helpful but that they were harm‐ In my opinion, that was contempt of Parliament. It's not going to ful. Of course we had, I remember, Dr. Theresa Tam telling this happen again. This motion requires the production of documents to committee that there was no real evidence of community transmis‐ this committee be limited only to redaction for national security sion or asymptomatic transmission. These were all arguably some‐ concerns and personal privacy concerns. That's as it should be. In what forgivable errors back in March or April. It's now October. We order for this committee and its members to do their job, we have have a lot of context here. We are facing a deepening of this crisis the right and the ability to have the documentation before us unvar‐ that, if you listen, public health officers across this country are nished, so we can see the information on behalf of Canadians and warning us could get disastrous. do the job they elected us to do.

Therefore, I think it's incumbent on this committee to have a These committees are not nuisances to government. These com‐ broad study. I think that the itemization is not exclusive; it is inclu‐ mittees aren't inconveniences to be managed by the government. sive. The motion that's before us lists a number of things that I We play a critical role in the parliamentary process. Part of that is think are critically important for this committee to be studying, to act as a second set of eyes and a set of information, and, to a things like vaccine development. If there is one thing that Canadi‐ wise government, a source of helpful information. We can't do that ans are waiting for to get our economy back on track and to get job if the government is censoring the information that comes be‐ public health taken care of, it's to develop a vaccine as soon as pos‐ fore this committee. sible and to get that distributed. I want to put down a marker right now that if this motion is ● (1410) passed, the information that comes to this committee better not be We need to be delving into this to find out where we are with it. redacted beyond the information specified in this motion or that This can't be done by a task force in secret. We need all Canadi‐ will be a clear and premeditated contempt of this committee. ans.... This committee has a right to ferret out full information on this, because it's the number one public health concern of every Every member of this committee has an independent obligation Canadian in this country. to get the information we need to do our job. I can't imagine any‐ body, even on the government side—unless they are just doing the I want to know why the early warning system, the GPHIN, was bidding of the government—who would want to limit the informa‐ cancelled. I want to look into this, not necessarily only to hold peo‐ tion this committee can see. ple accountable, although that's critical, but also because I want to know if this network is back in operation. If not, why not? Who For all these reasons, I very much support this motion. I want to made the decisions? continue this committee's very critical work to examine the most important public health issue in this country. On the adequacy of health transfer payments, which has been a very important priority to my Bloc colleague, it is critically impor‐ There are a thousand issues in public health, and there are many tant to look at whether our provincial and territorial governments that are extremely important. We all know what they are. Everyone have the resources they need. on this committee has priorities, but surely we can all agree that On our level of preparedness for the next level of the pandemic, standing above all of them right now is a global pandemic that is we know—let's face it—that the current and previous governments crippling our economy, killing our senior citizens in long-term care were caught with their pants down in preparing this country for a homes and threatening the health of Canadians from coast to coast. pandemic. We did not have sufficient PPE in this country. I urge my colleagues to vote in favour of this motion. Once As we stand on the verge of perhaps a second wave or a deep‐ again, there is nothing complex about this motion; of course it is in ened wave, surely every person on this committee should want to order. do everything we can to find out how prepared we are today. ● (1415) These are the kinds of matters covered by this motion. As much as Mr. Van Bynen's motion is absolutely something that should be We should all be, I would hope, unanimous in getting back to the looked into—I note this motion does look at the very important part business of putting the health of Canadians before partisan interests of mental health—for us to limit ourselves just to mental health is‐ and getting the study under way as soon as possible. sues in light of all the rest of what I said would be flagrant irrespon‐ The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Davies. sibility and a dereliction of duty of this committee. We will now go to Mr. Kelloway. I want to conclude by saying one thing about redaction. Prime Minister Trudeau famously said that his government would be open Mr. Mike Kelloway: Thanks so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, by default. He pledged that the government would be transparent. Mr. Davies, for your comments. 12 HESA-01 October 9, 2020

Most of everything that's been said today has a profound impact This is the advantage I am seeing to this motion, which effective‐ on Canadians. The pandemic has ravaged individuals, communities ly covers all the issues. That is why I support it. and sectors. It has touched mostly every facet, if not all facets, of life. I will stop here. When I thought about voting on the motion, I looked at the e- ● (1420) mail I received. I think I received the motion at 2:52 p.m. Atlantic The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thériault. standard time. It's now 3:18 p.m. It's absolutely serious to every parliamentarian. For someone to own that, or say that perhaps it's of [English] less importance to a particular group or party.... We're all in this to‐ gether. The clerk advises me that Ms. Vecchio is next. What I'm suggesting is that we take a little time to actually read Go ahead, Ms. Vecchio. what's been presented. Yes, our committee was one of the few com‐ mittees that met during COVID. We interviewed copious numbers Mrs. Karen Vecchio: I recognize that we may go a bit longer of witnesses, important witnesses, people who are impacted by this than three o'clock, so I just want to make sure we recognize that we pandemic and people who are on the ground servicing the needs of will not be suspending or adjourning at 3 p.m. and that we will con‐ people who are impacted by it. However, if we take just a little time tinue this discussion. to review, to do the due diligence that's important to do as parlia‐ I know many people seem to have reasons for not supporting this mentarians, I think we'll do the people of Canada a great service. motion, but as a member from Ontario, where we're seeing the hor‐ All I'm asking for is the ability to take a look at this and give it a rible things that are happening— thoughtful reading. I think that's what Canadians expect, and I don't [Translation] think they would expect anything less of us. The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kelloway. Mr. Luc Thériault: Mr. Chair, there is no interpretation. [Translation] [English] Mr. Thériault, the floor is yours. The Chair: Excuse me, Ms. Vecchio, we have a problem with the translation. Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mrs. Karen Vecchio: Okay. I will stop. Thank you. Before I talk about the motion, I would like to emphasize some‐ thing. We will have to get organized in order to properly see and The Chair: Mr. Thériault, are you getting the translation now? manage the raised hands appearing on the table. I raised my hand a long time ago. At that point, we were not many. There were Mr. [Translation] Van Bynen, Mr. Davies and Ms. Rempel Garner. I can wait for you Mr. Luc Thériault: The issue is likely related to the fact that to give me the floor, I don't want to prolong debates, but the speak‐ Ms. Vecchio has no microphone and the interpreters cannot inter‐ ing order will have to be managed better, Mr. Chair. At some point, pret her comments. I was turning the raised hand function on and off because I wanted to let you know there was no interpretation. I don't want to keep ex‐ My apologies, Ms. Vecchio, but I do not want to begin the com‐ periencing this over the next six months. When there is an issue mittee's work being marginalized. with interpretation, we have to stop. Someone has to let you know, and we have to stop everything, out of respect for the interpreters Thank you. and for me as a francophone. That said, it's lucky that I received the proposal. [English] I will not speak for too long. In brief, I agree with all of Mrs. Karen Vecchio: I have no headset. It's my fault. I can put it Mr. Davies' remarks. I just want to talk about the merits of this mo‐ back to the floor. That's okay. tion. We worked very hard for five months, and I don't want to The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Vecchio. throw all that away. During the biggest health crisis the planet has known, the government decided to prorogue Parliament. That is its Mr. Thériault, Ms. Vecchio was advising that we can go past the decision. However, we will not put aside those five months of tire‐ top of the hour and doesn't want to suspend or adjourn at that time. less work. Now we will go to Ms. Rempel Garner. In my view, the merit of this motion lies in its continuity. What has already been done will be part of what still needs to be studied. Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: I have no further comment at Another advantage of the motion is its global vision. After we be‐ this time. gan our work, five months ago, the problematic issues, the chapter The Chair: Okay. Going back to the participants' panel, I see Dr. headings, were added week by week. My first reaction was to note Powlowski is next. that we have a very robust work plan. We have hard work ahead of us, but Canadians deserve that we do it. Mr. Marcus Powlowski: Yes, you keep getting that wrong, Ron. October 9, 2020 HESA-01 13

It's looking kind of bleak for the Liberals here. This seems to be tion. I'm not sure what was actually said about redactions, but obvi‐ decided upon. ously this is a big issue.

It may surprise those in the opposition to know that I don't actu‐ I think almost everybody agrees that there probably ought to be ally have a lot of disagreement with a lot of what any of you have some redactions of, for example, personal privacy issues. If there said. I absolutely agree that COVID-19 is the number one issue fac‐ are things in documents that are related to individual names, I think ing Canadians right now. There is a priority. I do in fact like what we can probably all agree that we don't want that kind of informa‐ Ms. Rempel Garner said about getting to work on this. As a long- tion coming out. There might be things to do with national security. time emergency room doctor, in that life when we say we have to You've thrown it all together in a kind of omnibus motion. do something right away, it means within seconds or minutes. There aren't weeks or months for answering questions. ● (1425)

Given the importance of this crisis, I do agree we have to start There's a lot of good stuff in there. Yes, you've outlined a lot of looking at it. As for the motion itself, there was a very long list of the important measures related to COVID, but you've thrown in things that we ought to be looking at. I think it was pretty compre‐ these other things that are problematic. I don't think the redaction hensive in that it dealt with pretty well all of the problems related to issue is really nice and clear and that we can come to an easy agree‐ COVID. On all those things, I agree; however, I do have some dis‐ ment on it. agreement.

First, you've provided a great big long list of things. I don't know I think we ought to collectively decide that, yes, we're going to if you had a paragraph (z) for all other matters related to COVID deal with COVID, but decide what issues we want to pursue with not included in the list, because I don't know if that's a comprehen‐ respect to COVID, what meetings we want to have, and then take sive list. To accept that motion means that we've accepted this com‐ the procurement of documents issue as a different thing, rather than prehensive list, and I'm not sure that the list is comprehensive. I addressing it all together in one omnibus motion. think other things could be included on that list. Thank you. I think this is an evolving situation. As time goes by, there may be other things that we didn't really think about that will become ● (1430) more priorities. For example, I don't know if on that list was con‐ The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Powlowski. cern about COVID-19 getting into isolated indigenous communi‐ ties. That's certainly been a big concern. Influenza was really dev‐ astating in those communities. I don't know if that's on that list. If I believe we go now to Mr. d'Entremont. Go ahead, please. we vote and say, “Yes, okay, we're going to vote for this,” what Mr. Chris d'Entremont (West Nova, CPC): Thank you very about that? It wasn't on the list, so are we not going to do it? That much. doesn't make sense to me.

Second, there's no prioritization. I totally 100% agree we stay on I have just a little point of order before I get going. A number of COVID. This is our number one problem in Canada. It's our num‐ hands are going up, and I know some have spoken and some ber two problem in Canada. It's our number three problem in haven't. I just want to know if it's going to be the clerk or the IT Canada. For many of those who've spoken, I do believe that the folks who will be taking their names off the list or whether we as health committee can serve a constructive role in addressing this members should take our names off the list once we've spoken. problem and be a forum to bring up many ideas that we have to look at. We have to prioritize which things in COVID we're going The Chair: That's a good question. I actually have a conversa‐ to look at. This list, in setting the agenda, has no prioritization in tion going with the clerk about that very matter. I'm hoping that we what we're going to do. can focus on the participants panel and the hands raised there to manage our speaking list. If you've spoken and your hand does not Those are a couple of substantive issues I have with it. In the pre‐ go away from the speakers list, please take it off, but I believe it vious session, I think we worked pretty well together. I think we de‐ should be up to the administration, the staff, to probably do that. cided together what things we wanted to study. Together, we called I'm getting the thumbs-up from Mr. Clerk on that. witnesses. In a way, I think we did rise above petty politics in deal‐ ing with this issue. That's what we should continue to do. I don't Please go ahead. know. This seems to me to be a bit like petty politics in that we've allowed one party, the Conservative Party, to set the agenda, set the Mr. Chris d'Entremont: Perfect. table, and then we all follow suit. I just wanted to support the motion the way it is. I've had the op‐ Included in that, you throw in the request for procurement of a portunity in the time that Mr. Davies and Dr. Powlowski were bunch of documents with no redactions. Maybe I'm just a stupid speaking to read it a couple of times, even to the point of what Dr. doctor and not quite as complex as you people, but that was a very Powlowski was talking about when it came to personal privacy. long motion, and by the end of it, I can't say I was falling asleep, Paragraph (f) clearly lays that piece out within the motion that we but I was starting to lose track of all the things that were in the mo‐ have before us. 14 HESA-01 October 9, 2020

There's a reason that some of this is here. As a new member of Mr. Chair, as Mr. Kelloway said earlier, he wants to break it this committee, I've been paying attention to what the committee down and read this motion to see exactly what this is. Maybe there had been doing previously. I think it's a very good way to take in‐ are amendments to be made. Maybe this is something that this com‐ formation that should have already been compiled in the previous mittee supports with amendments. I can't even think of an amend‐ run of the health committee and be able to bring that stuff forward ment right now, because I haven't seen this motion in print. I would for our consideration as we've started to look at the number one is‐ love to take Thanksgiving weekend.... By the way, I won't be with sue in Canada today, which is COVID. Which part of COVID do my family for Thanksgiving weekend because of isolation. we want to focus on? I think all are as important as each other. I think this motion is able to prioritize it a little to understand that I would love to drill down on this to see what's in there. I have this is a very complex health situation that is before us. There some concerns with regard to Mr. Thériault as well. I'm not sure should be nothing here that is a surprise to the previous members of what he got, but this came in at 2:52 on Nova Scotia time. this committee, or even to the new members. Here's the part that upsets me a bit as you bring these things for‐ Again, if this were a short little motion and we got it at 2:52, I ward. The Prime Minister uses it and other members of cabinet use think it would be fairly reasonable to have a conversation about it. it. We continually hear that we're all part of team Canada. We We could look at it and we could decide whether there are things should be working together on things that are important to Canadi‐ we'd like to suggest amendments on. This is too big to look at to ans, and I agree with that. I do agree that we should all be part of even suggest amendments on a Friday afternoon before a long team Canada and make sure that our constituents are getting the weekend, when I would have to basically shut off my Zoom screen services they require to get over this issue, but I can tell you, as an in order to scroll through this omnibus motion. opposition member, that I do not feel like I'm a part of team Canada. It's team Liberal; it's not team Canada. I ask for informa‐ Maybe—and I'm looking at all your pictures here—no one else tion. We try to get stuff shared with us all the time and we continue minds the fact that they got this motion.... I'm assuming that every‐ to hit the blocks. We hit issues. We're not getting what we need. body got it at the same time. I know Don Davies is a speed-read‐ er—my gosh, he had a really good handle on this motion—but I I think this motion tries to put some of those things back on track just don't feel that I have a handle on that motion. I would seek that so that we understand where the government is, where it has been transparency we talk about, and that level of reasonableness. Give and where it is going so that we can all continue to be part of this us a chance to look at this motion and maybe propose amendments, so-called team Canada. and maybe the next time we meet, we could sit down and come up The last point I want to make is that I know Mr. Van Bynen with something that works for everybody. wanted to bring the issue of mental health forward, one that we all think is very important, and of course looking at the effects on Those are just my thoughts on something that's really a very mental health of COVID-19 is included in this motion. There's al‐ large motion. ready some appreciation of what everyone in this committee is looking for. Mr. Chair, I would love to have the weekend to take a look at this. Those are my quick comments for today. The Chair: Thank you, Mr. d'Entremont. Did I say that reason‐ The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Fisher. ably correctly? Mr. Chris d'Entremont: You had it right on—d'Entremont. You We go now to Ms. Sidhu. Ms. Sidhu, go ahead, please. used the best French word you can use there. Ms. Sonia Sidhu: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Chair: Thank you. We go now to Mr. Fisher. Please go ahead. I agree with what Mr. Davies was saying. We are having Canada's worst health crisis. I have seen these impacts, including in ● (1435) my own riding. The CF report on long-term care homes included Mr. Darren Fisher: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. one home in my riding. These issues are extremely important. We need to analyze these things properly. PROC had a similar long mo‐ Hello, from self-isolation in Nova Scotia, in a friend's basement tion that came forward, and they had to take time to analyze it prop‐ where I have my Surface Pro, which is where I read my email. I'm erly. As Mr. Fisher was saying, it's long. I know we have to analyze on Zoom on my Surface Pro. it properly in the next three days before moving forward on it. I've not read this motion. I think Dr. Powlowski called it an om‐ nibus motion. There's a lot in there, guys. All of us on this committee want to do good work for our con‐ stituents and for the country. We have to be reasonable and work to‐ I think it would be reasonable, since we talk about transparency, gether. I think it's reasonable to take some time to go through this that we should be able to take a look at this. I have not seen this in very long motion. As Mr. Davies said, we were working through print. I try to take a quick glance at it when I take my eyes off the COVID for seven months. We did a lot of good work. We heard screen for a minute. many, many witnesses from many parts of the country. October 9, 2020 HESA-01 15

I would also like to speak on the importance of my friend Tony's ● (1440) motion. It's so important. Limiting the discussion of COVID-19 by studying what he proposed, and narrowing it to the part of the pan‐ Let's set up our priorities and prioritize the issues. I hope we will demic is important. The mental health of many Canadians is affect‐ all understand this, and then we can properly study this issue, ed. The mental health impact of COVID-19 is real. which is more important to Canadians.

It is here, and things are only worsening with COVID-19. I was Thank you, Mr. Chair. at my youth council yesterday, and they were telling me horrible, horrible stories. That is why it's so important, as well, because in The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Sidhu. different parts of the country people are being told to stay home once again. I'm from Peel, and the cases there are rising. We need to prioritize issues. May I mention the Canadian Mental Health As‐ We go now to Mr. Davies. sociation and its CEO, Margaret Eaton, who also came to HESA? Members know that. There were mental-health-related COVID-19 Mr. Don Davies: Thank you. meetings. She phrased it as, “We are experiencing two pandemics. The first is obviously COVID-19. The second is the mental health I think a lot of excellent concerns were raised. Dr. Powlowski impacts of it.” raised a couple of excellent concerns, and if he looks at the motion, I think he'll see that all of his concerns are completely taken care She also said we are at the tip of the iceberg in understanding the of. I'm happy about that. impact this pandemic is having on Canadians' mental health.

CMHA did a study and found that Canadians are feeling more For instance, in terms of it being limited, the motion explicitly isolated then ever. According to CMHA, 47% of people are feeling says, “that this study evaluate, review and examine all issues rele‐ more alone than before. Luc said earlier that we were looking at vant to this situation, including the following”. One of his concerns many issues under COVID-19. I think it is important to focus on was that he thought the motion may be too restrictive. It's open to one area and then move forward on the next one. everything.

I appreciate what my other colleague said about the importance Second, he raised a concern about the redaction around national of being on team Canada. I would agree. We must work together, security or personal privacy. Both of those criteria are mentioned and Canadians expect us to work together. Providing an extremely explicitly in the motion as being grounds for redaction, so that con‐ long motion during a meeting and not allowing members to have cern is taken care of. time to review it is not exactly operating as a team. The third concern was was prioritization. He was concerned that I have not had the time to properly assess the motion, but I want there was no prioritization. Let's remember what we studied last it. There's so much to it that we need to use a reasonable time to session. What we were studying was the government's response to take a look into it. I think my other colleagues agree with that. I ask COVID. That was the topic that was given us. There was no priori‐ how we are able to prioritize paramount points for the health of tization in that either. Of course, if anything, this motion is far more Canadians. I ask who decided on how to support provinces for prioritized than anything I've seen. long-term care on mental health. It's very, very important. I think it remains open to us to make the priorities we want any‐ In my riding, the cases are rising. Long-term care is an issue. way. Nothing in this motion says that we have to study anything in Mental health is an issue. This is not the time to play politics. Just any particular order. I would suggest that once we adopt this mo‐ prioritize, and focus on, the health of Canadians. I sincerely believe tion, if it is the pleasure of the committee to do that, then we sit that we are not prepared to properly study this issue, and we need down and we do what we did last time. We break this down into time to. Let's prioritize issues one by one. I can say over 80% of all themes. We start getting witnesses together. We start the task of COVID-related deaths occurred in long-term care homes. rolling up our sleeves and getting at it. This issue is very close to my heart. I know many colleagues agree. I know one of the issues is this, too: I think we need to prior‐ I don't see any problem with prioritization. As well, when you go itize, one by one. It's extremely important for this committee to through the items that are listed as issues that we want to look at, it study how the federal government can work with its provincial and emerges pretty quickly, I think, which ones may be higher priority territorial counterparts to ensure what happened in our long-term than others. care homes, and the first wave, won't happen when we hit the sec‐ ond wave. This is very, very important. I also just wanted to say that I don't see any petty politics here. There's no ganging up on anybody. This motion has the support of Is it more important than issues raised by all our colleagues? It's the majority of people on this committee and the majority of par‐ hard to decide. Are we going to have another chance to do it? ties, though it may not be the motion the Liberal Party wants to Therefore I ask you all, why this rush? study. 16 HESA-01 October 9, 2020

Might I remind you that Liberals came to this committee with a understand the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental motion of their own. They wanted to study the impacts of COVID health and well-being of Canadians. on mental health, which again is laudable. This motion just says that we want to study far more than that. Once again, I have to sort In this motion I see nowhere where it says that we would want to of gently but categorically reject any notion that this is complex. take a look at high-risk groups like indigenous people, racialized Canadians and vulnerable populations, and I think it's important It's basically no more than just saying that this committee wants that we take a look at the socio-economic implications that would to continue studying COVID-19. It just has listed a number of spe‐ require us to develop different programs. A general, all-encompass‐ cific areas that we want to look at, which, now in October of 2020, ing motion such as what we have before us now takes away the op‐ this committee is far better placed to identify. We couldn't do that portunity for us to focus on areas that we need to put an early focus back in February when we got the motion from the House. We on. didn't even know what to study. It was just to study everything in the government's response to COVID, which we did very well. If I recall what we heard from one of the witnesses, it was that if we had focused on what was in the curve as opposed to focusing on I think that was everything I wanted to mention. I think we the curve itself, we might have had some better results. There is no should go ahead and adopt this motion. Then, perhaps at our next mention of any of that in this motion. meeting, we could decide to sort of prioritize these, start the pro‐ cess of witness selection and get to the job that Canadians want us My concern is that as we go forward with such a broad mandate, to do, which I think all of us here want to do at this committee. we're losing the ability to focus on priority areas, and I think we need to give close consideration to that. When I say “close consid‐ ● (1445) eration”, please give us a week to read the document, to consider all The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Davies. the aspects, to look at the implications.

We go now to Mr. Van Bynen. Mr. Van Bynen, go ahead, please. In terms of the document I proposed, I had fully anticipated that Mr. Tony Van Bynen: Thank you, Mr. Chair. if it needed to be referred, I was quite prepared to be transparent in that respect and to permit others an opportunity to give full consid‐ We're hearing a lot of anecdotal evidence about the second pan‐ eration to that document. That's not happening here, and it's a bit of demic and the increased risk that some people may have in terms of a disappointment that the proposal with respect to what I consider depression, psychological distress, substance abuse and PTSD. I to be the second pandemic, for which there is no vaccine, was so very much appreciate my colleague Mr. Davies's passion towards summarily dismissed, and now it's buried deep between two pages the urgency of the situation. of small-font documents. I think that's totally unfair to people who are suffering at a very critical time. One of my concerns is that we are lacking focus on this. If we have too many priorities, we have no priorities. There are a consid‐ I would ask that we be given the opportunity to review this in erable number of requests, and frankly, if we're talking about trans‐ more detail. I know we can go chapter and verse in rules and regu‐ parency, I think transparency is the obligation to give others the op‐ lations, and that's fine, and I think they're in place for a reason. portunity to read what is being proposed and an adequate amount of Let's respect everyone's desire to make a thorough decision, to do a time to consider what's being proposed. I don't think that's the case thorough analysis and to come forward with a consensus, which I with this motion. I have not had an opportunity to go through it in think can happen with more thorough discussion and debate and an detail. opportunity to review it.

I think, in the interests of transparency and openness, that we Again, if we have too many priorities, we have no priorities, and should all be given an opportunity to review it and find out what this is too much of a shotgun approach for me to be happy with it. I the implications are. With some of the documents that were being am willing to give it further consideration if people are willing to produced or that were requested to be produced, we had a consider‐ give me the opportunity to review it in more detail. able amount of discussion on that in committee previously. As I said earlier, we have had 34 meetings, 171 witnesses and 51 briefs, ● (1450) and we've yet to hear what that has produced in things we should be considering on a go-forward basis. We've invested a lot of time al‐ I know that a number of things are reflected in this document that ready and we haven't heard the recommendations or the analysis as we had quite a robust discussion on, and we came to consensus. we go forward. Why is it that we're rushing into this without providing the trans‐ parency of full due consideration? The study I have proposed would provide us with a better under‐ standing of the current situation relative to mental health and its im‐ Thank you, Mr. Chair. pact on mental health. It would enable and provide us with a more The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen. informed strategy on mental health and on well-being as we go for‐ ward. I go now to Dr. Powlowski, please. I'll get that straight one of these days. We've spent a considerable amount of money in dealing with the early stages of mental health, and I think it's important for us to un‐ Mr. Marcus Powlowski: Yes, yes. Don't worry, you'll have an‐ derstand how effective those items are. With this study we would other— October 9, 2020 HESA-01 17

The Chair: I'm sorry; I skipped over Mr. Fisher. Mr. Fisher, iPhone in my hand, I have not been able to drill down into this mo‐ please go ahead. tion. Mr. Darren Fisher: We could have gone with Dr. Powlowski. I'm perfectly in agreement that the committee must focus on My apologies to Mr. Van Bynen. I was trying my best to scan COVID-19, but I would have been very much in support of focus‐ through this motion while he was speaking. I'm taking a quick look ing on the mental health side. One of the focuses in my community right now, and I see that the motion asks public health officials ba‐ and through our constituency office is the mental health of my con‐ sically to stop what they're doing to protect Canadians and sift stituents. We've held numerous town hall meetings in our riding, through emails and documents instead. and they're all very well attended. What we've come to see pre- Gosh, I've got to tell you that these health care professionals, COVID is that we have a patchwork of mental health services these public health officials, are working hard day and night. As across this country. That is one of those things that we all in the has been said numerous times, we are in a resurgence. Some people House of Commons should be working on tackling: how we can as‐ call it a second wave; I call it a resurgence. You have these public sist provinces and territories that have the jurisdiction for much of health officials working with provinces, working with the Province this stuff. How do we assist them? We don't want to trample on ju‐ of Quebec and the Province of Ontario to make sure that people are risdiction, but we want to be there to help in all things COVID. safe. If we truly want to be there to help in all things COVID, we have I would expect that some of these documents could also catch up to be a willing partner with provinces and territories. We have to be a lot of correspondence with the provinces. I think about the need a willing partner with Quebec and Ontario as it pertains to COVID to respect our relationship with the provinces and territories. We and as it pertains to the mental health aspect of a pandemic within a hear Mr. Thériault in the House of Commons talking about that all pandemic. the time, about respecting that jurisdictional relationship.

Again, public health officials are working day and night, espe‐ ● (1455) cially since this resurgence has hit. I think, as I said the previous time I spoke, that it's very important for us to be transparent, and I know that it's very important to Canadians that they understand Again, I would seek the ability to drill down on this motion, how officials are working to keep them safe. I'm not suggesting that which, on continuous looks, seems to have an awful lot of good we wouldn't get to a place where we get that. stuff in it. I think it's something that we as a committee could work on, much like we did in the last session, when we worked really I want to make sure that Canadians indeed have access to accu‐ well as a committee on finding ways to come to an outcome. We rate and reliable information from public health experts. Those pub‐ very often had unanimous support for folks' suggestions on studies lic health experts deserve, at this point in the resurgence or the sec‐ and where to go, especially as it pertained to COVID. ond wave, to focus on the work at hand.

Again, Ontario is in a second wave. Other provinces are seeing Mr. Chair, I would seek the ability as a member of Parliament to case spikes. Chris, Mike and I are fortunate to be wrapped in the be able to look at this over on Thanksgiving weekend, drill down loving arms of the Atlantic bubble; however, we're starting to see on this, and perhaps come up with some suggestions for amend‐ some cases creep up in Moncton now in a long-term care facility, ments down the road. That is my plea for members of this commit‐ and I know that Sonia had intentions of moving a motion forward tee: It's to give that opportunity over this weekend. on long-term care, I believe. I didn't see a motion.

Looking again at this motion, it seems like it's all over the map. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our previous study on COVID lacked a little bit of specificity; it was the opposite of this omnibus motion. It was, strictly speaking, The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Fisher. to speak about every aspect of COVID; however, when Tony talked about his motion, his motion was specific in an area that of all of the things that... Of all of the witnesses we had and all of the testi‐ We go now to Dr. Powlowski. mony we had, we didn't get very much testimony on the mental health aspect of COVID-19 that I think—Tony, I was trying my Mr. Marcus Powlowski: I'm happy that you finally got it right best to listen to what you were saying—you were calling the pan‐ for me as “Dr.”, for a change. demic within the pandemic, or a second pandemic. There was an example of a mental health crisis line in Nova Scotia that was re‐ ceiving 25 calls a day pre-COVID and 750 calls during COVID. With all due respect to Don, I think this is a complex motion. For example, he rightly pointed out that in the preamble it does say that It certainly is something that needs to be done, and perhaps it's you're looking to “examine all issues” related to the situation. That covered in this motion. Again, I haven't been able to drill down in kind of detail is something that takes time to fully appreciate, to this motion, so very likely there is a mental health aspect to this read and to read again, and ask, “Well, is this an inclusive list? No, motion, but again, with my Surface Pro in front of me and my it's not an inclusive list.” 18 HESA-01 October 9, 2020

However, what's in my mind, having spent a bit of time writing I think, without the Liberals, you've decided that these will be the health legislation, is that I would have thought the consideration things we ought to be examining, and I don't think you got it quite would be that when you make a list, there is a kind of a supposition right. that those are the priority issues. Okay, you can add other issues, but you have decided to delineate what you think the major issues ● (1500) are, and I think you've missed some. You've missed some of the big issues. For example, there's nothing here about the global response That's one thing, and there's certainly no attempt to prioritize to this pandemic. This is something that's affecting everyone in the what we're going to do. Heck, if we were to have one meeting on world. I think it certainly ethically becomes us to consider what's each of these things, I don't know if we'd even have time before happening in other countries and our role as Canadians in address‐ Christmas to do all those things. ing the difficulties faced by people in other countries. Just as it is in Canada, it's even more so in poor countries that it's the poorest peo‐ The second thing, a big concern, is the procurement of docu‐ ple who are most often adversely affected. There is nothing on this ments. As Darren has said, certainly a consideration for all of us list to suggest that this is at all a concern of ours, nor is there a sug‐ ought to be possible implications on our relationships with the gestion that we perhaps have to look at the global health response provinces. Obviously the provinces take the lead in health issues. and look at the future of the global health response in order to pre‐ They have jurisdiction constitutionally for health care. A lot of our vent this from happening again. response to the pandemic has been in concert with the provinces. Having a good relationship with the provinces is absolutely funda‐ mental. If you're asking for all emails and all communications, I The International Health Regulations give the World Health Or‐ would think almost inevitably there are going to be some things ganization the authority to issue recommendations in response to an that could potentially harm our relationship with the provinces. It outbreak of disease or a public health emergency of international would seem to me that this might not be a really wise idea at this concern. These obviously need revising. There are things that could time when our relationships with the provinces are so important. be done with those to perhaps make them more effective. One ex‐ ample is a proposal in the International Health Regulations that the Thank you. WHO be given the power to be able to send independent observers into a country early on in order to determine whether there is some‐ ● (1505) thing developing. That's not on your list either. The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Powlowski. We'll go now to Mr. Kelloway. A big concern, as I said before, is indigenous communities. What happens if COVID gets into the indigenous communities? It's not on your list. There's the disruption of the medical health system and Go ahead, Mr. Kelloway. the harm to people because they don't want to go to the hospital be‐ Mr. Mike Kelloway: Thanks, Mr. Chair. cause of COVID. People aren't going in when they have their heart attacks. We're not doing the investigations we need in order to de‐ tect and treat cancer. This has been a pretty major theme and a pret‐ Just to be somewhat of a bookend to Mr. Powlowski, I wonder if ty major concern. That's not on your list. Schools and day cares there is an appetite to look at having the Liberal members of the have obviously been a really big concern in the last month now that committee take a little time—a little time—to look at the motion. I schools have restarted. That's not on your list. don't know if this motion is good, bad or indifferent, but I want to be part of the solution. I want to be able to speak to it.

You chose to write a list here, and these seem to be our priorities. I can certainly mute the microphone and read, and do that now, Why don't we work collectively to decide what our priorities are, but I don't think any of the people who elected us across the coun‐ rather than you kind of dictating a list of what we think the priori‐ try did so based on our ability to read quickly. It's to think about ties are? I think you got some of those priorities wrong. The very what we're reading and how we can add to it, how we can con‐ first thing you talk about is testing. I have to look at the actual tribute to it. That's team Canada. That's a Team Canada approach. It wording, because there again, I don't think you got it quite right. is looking for a specific amount of time to be able to do that, and You say, “rapid and at home testing approvals and procurement not necessarily to tear it and rip it apart, but to add quality and con‐ process and schedule, and protocol for distribution”. You're not tribute to it for the benefit of all Canadians from coast to coast to even looking at the science, the public health of testing, the ratio‐ coast. I wonder if that is something that could be discussed here. nale for testing and how much you can rely on a test. These are fun‐ damental. That's what you do as a doctor. You decide, when you do Thank you. a test, what you're going to do with that test. This is somewhat complex. It's the negative predictive value of a test you're looking The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kelloway. We go now to Mr. Van at. This takes time to explain. When you talk about rapid testing, Bynen. you have to consider the negative and positive predictive value, and that's complex. It depends on the incidence of the disease in the Go ahead, Mr. Van Bynen. population. You're just jumping right to the conclusion that we want to do rapid testing. Well, I think it's a little more complex than that. Mr. Tony Van Bynen: Thank you, Mr. Chair. October 9, 2020 HESA-01 19

“Seniors’ mental health is a highly relevant issue right now”, ac‐ ● (1510) cording to Dr. Mah, who is the associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto. She further stated: The Chair: We will now go to Ms. Sidhu. We know that during the SARS epidemic in 2003, there were increases in psy‐ Ms. Sonia Sidhu: Thank you, Mr. Chair. chiatric problems among older adults in areas with large outbreaks of the virus. Today, one-third of people below 65 years of age are experiencing depression and high stress, even when they have not been infected or exposed to As my colleague said before, what is in this motion? Yes, testing COVID-19. These numbers may be even higher in older adults, who are more is important, and I didn't get a chance to read all of this, but what is vulnerable... in it? That is why, on the last statement, I said we need to set our Further, I will offer the comments of the assistant professor at the priorities. University of Victoria, who said: Mr. Fisher mentioned a very important point, which is that public But there are some unique features of the COVID-19 pandemic. The virus' ease of transmission compared to others has necessitated, in some regions, much health officials will have to work to produce documents to address more broad-reaching public health responses. For example, lockdowns of cities, this motion while case numbers are rising in Quebec and Ontario, extensive business and school closures. let alone the fact that this weekend people will gather for Thanks‐ giving and we likely could see more cases arise. Today we have I don't think we're addressing the issues that are global, as was over 900 cases in Ontario, and Quebec cases have been over 1,000 mentioned by Dr. Powlowski. a day while Ontario has seen, far and away, the largest case total The Canadian Medical Health Association stated: today. In my riding, case numbers are also rising. Canadian mental health has taken a severe hit during the pandemic with the na‐ tion seeing exploding rates of anxiety and depression, increased use of alcohol This Thanksgiving weekend has the potential to be a super- and drugs, and difficulty accessing important supports, according to a recent sur‐ spreader weekend. That is what people are saying. This is what our vey from Mental Health Research Canada. public health officials are concerned about. We must take time to properly analyze and then listen to public health officials, and, with That's as recent as April 2020. this motion, ensure that we are not overburdening public officials whose job it is to keep our constituencies safe. We need to be cog‐ More than half of Canadians feel the federal government and the nizant. There is a significant amount of personal information that provincial governments should be doing more to support mental needs to be protected. health for Canadians. I am saying this in addition to the United Na‐ tions, which said that good mental health is critical to the function‐ ing of society at the best of times, and must be front and centre in I need to add that operational details and action taken by other every country's response to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. orders of government would also likely be caught up in this surge, The mental health and well-being of whole societies has been and it is important for them to be consulted beforehand as well. severely impacted by this crisis, and it is a priority to be addressed Materials that do not contain this information can be publicly urgently. shared, as requested, but we need to be mindful of privacy issues as well. The hard-working public servants who are doing the critical When I see that it is one simple bullet point on two small-font work to help Canadians and keep people safe would be forced to recommendations, I believe that we are missing an opportunity. I redirect their efforts to filling these orders. Our teams and depart‐ know we have seen an awful lot of finger-wagging and accusations ments are in regular communication with the provinces and territo‐ that we should have done more sooner when we got engaged and ries. They are wrapped up in all of our communications. responded to the pandemic that we are now in. This is a time to focus on Canadians' health. It is more important. This is my point. We now have an opportunity to get ahead of Making some of these documents public at this time could put what I refer to as the “second pandemic”, and it would be on us if Canadians' positions at risk as we are trying to resolve the issues. we didn't take the appropriate steps to make sure that we acted when we could. That's one of the reasons I brought my own motion Mr. Chair, we need to turn on the light of discussion, hear from forward. witnesses and do a proper study so that Canadians are not falling Now is the time for us to focus on containing the issue that we through the cracks. This is an urgent and important study, and have and, in part, some of these recommendations will help. I'm not through it we can make a real difference. sure the production of documents is a productive step forward, but we can work our way through that. Now is the time for us to be Mr. Van Bynen's motion would ensure that we study that right proactive and deal with what lies ahead of us. What lies ahead of us away. This is very important. I cannot stress it more. I know when I in mental health is something that concerns me deeply. I've seen its meet with my youth council, my constituents and stakeholders, I effect on members in my community. hear how this pandemic is exposing how broken our mental health system already is and how much we need to focus on that. We must This is not a pandemic we're going to fix with a vaccine. This is invest in community mental health programs and services, especial‐ something that requires very careful early thought, and to be one of ly for our isolated seniors. We need to improve on that. We need to such a number of broad statements does injustice to people who are improve our nationwide suicide prevention plan. These are very im‐ suffering from the mental health pandemic. portant topics, along with long-term care, and there are many more. 20 HESA-01 October 9, 2020

That is why we need time to read this, to prioritize the study and such small print. I'd like to look at Mr. Barlow's and Mr. Thériault's to read what is in it. We need to bring that in too. motions—and Ms. Vecchio is right—as they relate to what we are ● (1515) deciding to do for our first meeting. The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Sidhu. I believe there was also a motion at the end, before our prorogu‐ We go again to Mr. Kelloway. Go ahead, please. ing, that was going to continue some of the things that we've done. Mr. Mike Kelloway: Thanks, Mr. Chair. It was also going to potentially resurrect or save some of the things that we had in the past. All options should be on the table. Howev‐ There's a lot of good discussion here on all sides of the aisle. er, all options are off the table today because we won't get to Mr. To go back to just the amount of time, I know that next week is a Thériault's study and we won't get to Mr. Barlow's study, assuming constituency week, but if there were an opportunity to have the that they are studies. We won't get to what I truly feel is a very im‐ weekend to review—I don't know the procedures for this, Mr. Chair portant study with Mr. Van Bynen. We won't get to a very important or Clerk—to be able to come back to have that complete discus‐ study that means an awful lot to MP Sidhu. sion, to have what is needed to move forward in whatever form or fashion.... I'm wondering if that is something that the members op‐ I would love to see us continue discussion on this motion the posite are open to, to give us the weekend to do so. Is there a possi‐ next time we meet and have some time to digest it, talk about it, bility, then, to form the meeting during the constituency week if and think about ways it might be amended, so that maybe we can possible, to be able to have that time to, again, simply digest what get to a point where everybody agrees. I believe there's value in has been presented in the last half-hour? having a blue-sky meeting or a conversation about what the priori‐ The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kelloway. ties are and whose motion has the support of the committee. It very well might be Ms. Rempel Garner's motion. It may very well be We go now to Mr. Fisher. that we read Mr. Thériault's motion over the weekend and think it Mr. Darren Fisher: Thank you, Mr. Chair. has merit and might be something worth looking at first. Again, we don't have that opportunity with this discussion today. I just noticed that we also have a notice of motion from Mr. Bar‐ low, as well as from Mr. Thériault, but it's too small to read. This is something that deserves a further drill-down on the de‐ We started this meeting by shutting down debate on Mr. Van By‐ tails. It would be very helpful, certainly for this member. nen's motion. We didn't get a chance to hear the motion from Ms. Sidhu. I can't read this because it is too small, but this could be very ● (1520) important. I don't know if other members have seen Mr. Thériault's motion. The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Fisher. Mrs. Karen Vecchio: I have a point of order. He can't start talking about other motions. [Translation] Mr. Darren Fisher: Is that in English and French, Mr. Chair? The Chair: Thank you for the point of order. Mr. Thériault, go ahead. It's Mr. Fisher's time. He can use it as he pleases. Mr. Luc Thériault: Mr. Chair, I don't know if this is a matter of Mr. Darren Fisher: The member is actually right on that. My procedure, but I would like to know how we will operate in the fu‐ thinking is that we are here in our first meeting. This is what we've ture. When the committee is convened, will we unduly prolong the traditionally done, whether it be a blue-sky discussion or business committee meeting because the Liberals do not agree with what is meetings, as you called them, or we sit around and talk as a com‐ on the table, or will we respect the committee notice of meeting? mittee about which motions are the ones we want to move forward We are really starting off on the wrong foot. on. Again, my apologies for not being able to read this small print on I am a workaholic, I don't count my hours, but my schedule is my iPad, but maybe this motion of Mr. Thériault is extremely im‐ organized. Everyone has an organized schedule, which is important. portant to Mr. Thériault and maybe it's very important to the rest of Time is equally important for everyone. Yet we have now gone the committee. I don't know. Again, Mr. Chair, you call it a busi‐ 22 minutes over the allocated time. You have not said anything, re‐ ness meeting, where we sit down as a committee and ask what the peated anything or pointed out the fact. I am a bit disappointed in most important thing is. What do we want to talk about? What mo‐ the way the work is being aligned today. tion, and how might we come to an agreement on a potential mo‐ tion? Do we amend it? Do we take it holus-bolus as is? In my case, it's clear. As of 3:30 p.m., I'm no longer available. There's been a lot of talk about the transparency of having a two- Obviously, we will be able to continue to move motions. I'm not page motion that one truly can't digest while sitting here listening to too concerned about my motion, as I know I will have another op‐ the comments of all the other folks on the virtual meeting. I wish I portunity to move it. I also know that we have the important dead‐ could read Mr. Thériault's motion here. My apologies for it being line of January 1. October 9, 2020 HESA-01 21

Mr. Chair, tell us how you want to operate because this is not as Canada enters a second wave. As I said before, we need to shine working well for me. When a convocation is issued by the Office of a light on the discussion, hear from witnesses and do a proper study the Clerk, I think it should be respected. So I am asking you the to give proper direction so that Canadians are not falling through question, Mr. Chair. How do you want to operate? Will we go over the cracks. the allocated time every time the Liberals don't agree? [English] My colleague Tony's motion is also very important. As I said ear‐ lier, it is so important, because as we know, people are twice as The Chair: It is up to the committee to decide whether to ad‐ likely to say their mental health has declined in these challenging journ or not. The fact that it is proposed as a two-hour meeting does times. They are five times as likely to feel depressed, three times not necessarily bind us. The members have certainly been arguing more likely to have trouble coping, four times more likely to have for some time, so, Mr. Thériault, if you would like to move a mo‐ had suicidal thoughts and four times more likely to have tried to tion to adjourn the meeting or the debate, that would be up to you. harm themselves. Do you wish to move such a motion? [Translation] The motion also mentions long-term care, which I did not have a Mr. Luc Thériault: What I want, Mr. Chair, is for you to respect chance to present. With this motion, we would study long-term the meeting time set by the office of the clerk. When the time for care, which is something that is very important in my riding. We ending the meeting comes, I want you to at least raise that fact and have to go through things and dig down. By agreeing to study the ask whether the meeting can be extended. It has been a while since impacts of COVID-19 on long-term care, our committee can be the we should have decided whether the meeting should be extended first step in righting the wrongs of our government, which has ig‐ and, if so, by how much time, instead of continuing to hear from nored the issues of long-term care for far too long. colleagues. I do still want to hear from them, but we must not for‐ get that we have schedules and agendas to respect. The type of person who needs long-term care assistance is not changing, as 62% of residents have some form of Alzheimer's and That is what I wanted to hear you on. You are throwing it back at 90% of long-term care residents in Ontario have some form of cog‐ me by saying that I could move a motion to adjourn. I understand nitive impairment. As well, people were previously staying in these perfectly, but is it not your responsibility to raise the issue when the facilities one to two years, but now the average length of stay is six time set aside for the meeting is up? months. The needs of long-term care residents are changing. This is ● (1525) an important issue too. [English] To summarize, there are important issues at stake here. We must The Chair: We already have Ms. Vecchio's intervention. They take the time to analyze the motion. We need to ensure that at com‐ do not wish to stop right on the dot within our time slot, and I don't mittee we are using our time and resources properly. We need time have the power to arbitrarily adjourn the meeting. That is up to the to dig down. As my colleague said, we have to look at what is not committee. We can carry on this debate as long as we wish to do so, in this motion. We need to prioritize what is important to Canadi‐ or we can consider a motion for adjournment. It's really up to the ans. committee. I'll go now to Ms. Sidhu. I know we need time. I understand my friend Luc's frustration. It is why we need time to dig down, and I urge all members to agree Ms. Sonia Sidhu: Thank you, Mr. Chair. that we have to look into that.

I understand Mr. Thériault's frustration. I totally understand The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Sidhu. when Darren said we need to dig further down. I would like to take a minute to stress the importance and reason‐ We'll go now to Mr. Kelloway, please. ability of taking some time to reflect on this motion. I think the op‐ position would agree that instead of rushing forward with the mo‐ Mr. Mike Kelloway: Thank you, Mr. Chair. tion, it is important to take time to properly assess each and every aspect of it, because it's so important to Canadians. I move to adjourn. As my colleague Dr. Marcus Powlowski said, we need to look at The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kelloway. what is in it and what is not in it. That is why we need time to dig down and then collectively come up with what is more important to We have on the floor a motion to adjourn the meeting. Canadians. Let us discuss that, but we need to dig down. Canadians deserve the best from this committee, especially during these chal‐ Is it the will of the committee to adjourn? Is there any dissent? lenging times. It doesn't mean rushing forward with an omnibus motion that we cannot digest. There's no time to read it. ● (1530) It is a huge motion that only briefly references the mental health Mrs. Karen Vecchio: I ask for a recorded vote, please. impacts of COVID-19. Over 9,500 Canadians have tragically died due to COVID-19, and every day we are seeing case numbers rise The Chair: We will go to a recorded vote. 22 HESA-01 October 9, 2020

I will clarify that this motion is not to adjourn the debate; it is to (Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5) adjourn the meeting. The Chair: The meeting is therefore now adjourned.

Published under the authority of the Speaker of Publié en conformité de l’autorité the House of Commons du Président de la Chambre des communes SPEAKER’S PERMISSION PERMISSION DU PRÉSIDENT

The proceedings of the House of Commons and its commit‐ Les délibérations de la Chambre des communes et de ses tees are hereby made available to provide greater public ac‐ comités sont mises à la disposition du public pour mieux le cess. The parliamentary privilege of the House of Commons renseigner. La Chambre conserve néanmoins son privilège to control the publication and broadcast of the proceedings of parlementaire de contrôler la publication et la diffusion des the House of Commons and its committees is nonetheless re‐ délibérations et elle possède tous les droits d’auteur sur served. All copyrights therein are also reserved. celles-ci. Reproduction of the proceedings of the House of Commons Il est permis de reproduire les délibérations de la Chambre and its committees, in whole or in part and in any medium, et de ses comités, en tout ou en partie, sur n’importe quel sup‐ is hereby permitted provided that the reproduction is accu‐ port, pourvu que la reproduction soit exacte et qu’elle ne soit rate and is not presented as official. This permission does not pas présentée comme version officielle. Il n’est toutefois pas extend to reproduction, distribution or use for commercial permis de reproduire, de distribuer ou d’utiliser les délibéra‐ purpose of financial gain. Reproduction or use outside this tions à des fins commerciales visant la réalisation d'un profit permission or without authorization may be treated as copy‐ financier. Toute reproduction ou utilisation non permise ou right infringement in accordance with the Copyright Act. Au‐ non formellement autorisée peut être considérée comme une thorization may be obtained on written application to the Of‐ violation du droit d’auteur aux termes de la Loi sur le droit fice of the Speaker of the House of Commons. d’auteur. Une autorisation formelle peut être obtenue sur présentation d’une demande écrite au Bureau du Président de la Chambre des communes. Reproduction in accordance with this permission does not La reproduction conforme à la présente permission ne con‐ constitute publication under the authority of the House of stitue pas une publication sous l’autorité de la Chambre. Le Commons. The absolute privilege that applies to the proceed‐ privilège absolu qui s’applique aux délibérations de la Cham‐ ings of the House of Commons does not extend to these per‐ bre ne s’étend pas aux reproductions permises. Lorsqu’une mitted reproductions. Where a reproduction includes briefs reproduction comprend des mémoires présentés à un comité to a committee of the House of Commons, authorization for de la Chambre, il peut être nécessaire d’obtenir de leurs au‐ reproduction may be required from the authors in accor‐ teurs l’autorisation de les reproduire, conformément à la Loi dance with the Copyright Act. sur le droit d’auteur. Nothing in this permission abrogates or derogates from the La présente permission ne porte pas atteinte aux privilèges, privileges, powers, immunities and rights of the House of pouvoirs, immunités et droits de la Chambre et de ses Commons and its committees. For greater certainty, this per‐ comités. Il est entendu que cette permission ne touche pas mission does not affect the prohibition against impeaching or l’interdiction de contester ou de mettre en cause les délibéra‐ questioning the proceedings of the House of Commons in tions de la Chambre devant les tribunaux ou autrement. La courts or otherwise. The House of Commons retains the right Chambre conserve le droit et le privilège de déclarer l’utilisa‐ and privilege to find users in contempt of Parliament if a re‐ teur coupable d’outrage au Parlement lorsque la reproduc‐ production or use is not in accordance with this permission. tion ou l’utilisation n’est pas conforme à la présente permis‐ sion.

Also available on the House of Commons website at the Aussi disponible sur le site Web de la Chambre des following address: https://www.ourcommons.ca communes à l’adresse suivante : https://www.noscommunes.ca